Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:19:29 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.SPAMCAKEnet
|
Viewed:
|
3279 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher L. Weeks" wrote:
> Scott Edward Sanburn wrote:
> >
> > "Christopher L. Weeks" wrote:
> > >
> > > Like David Koresh?
> >
> > I'm totally lost. Could you clarify, Chris? (I should have gotten more sleep
> > last night!)
>
> You were assuring me that this wonderful democracy works to protect the
> lives of the citizens, I think. You said "I was talking more of a
> constitutional democracy, where the people have certain rights (a.k.a.
> Bill of Rights) and protection from being murdered and so forth," and I
> was pointing out that our constitutional democracy murders its own
> citizens from time to time. All too often from my perspective.
>
> > > I think that Mob Rule is where we are now...oh yeah, that is a
> > > representative democracy.
> >
> > Isn't a mob rule like 500 people outside a building, for example, demanding a
> > hanging?
>
> Yes, that is an example. Another example is when a majority (only 51%
> maybe) situates an executive who heads the executive agencies, and a
> legislature who enacts laws and then executive agencies behave poorly
> (like the FDA illegally seizing the entire stock of a bunch of
> healthfood stores, or the NSA (or whomever) raiding a Texas game company
> and stealing their equipment as punishment for doing research). I call
> it mob rule any time that a majority can tread upon the rights of a minority.
>
> > In terms of change, Chris, not your definition. I think our social ills are
> > caused by leftist (liberal) mentality, i think both economic and social changes
> > are needed to keep America great. The status quo is killing us.
>
> I certainly can't agree entirely. Some social ills are. The issue of
> acceptance of homosexuality has come up here before, so I'll use it. I
> think that both the left and right are causing social ills on this
> issue. The right wants those filthy homos to be swept under the rug (at
> best) or executed in a storm of bullets and a sea of blood (at worst).
> This is causing needless conflict. My message to them is "get a life -
> take care of your own business, and if you feel threatened by
> homosexuals, it really is just your own business." Now the liberals
> think that homosexuality should be embraced as just an alternative
> lifestyle and that gay couples should have an easy time adopting and
> that they should be accorded special rights as a couple. But, I think
> that might be leading to 'social ills' too. I suspect that a 'normal'
> stable family environment is better for kids to be raised in on average.
> (OTOH a gay couple who could provide a loving home for a kid who
> otherwise wouldn't have one, should certainly be utilized.)
So, something is better than nothing. Yes, but I'm having a tough time figuring a
scenario where no hetereo couples would be available.
> > > Wow. I'm glad that I can't claim that. I strongly favor >improvement.
> >
> > Do you understand now? :)
>
> Actually, I'm not sure. It sounds to me like you're unreceptive to the
> problems with the right and over-receptive to the problems of the left.
> I suppose I understand 'your' definitions, but I don't think they're
> exactly right.
>
> > I agree. But their way of thinking has failed time and time again. You cannot
> > change human nature.
>
> What do you mean?
>
> > Segregation of people because of race violates everything America stands for.
> > Integration of races is what is supposed to be.
>
> What about socioeconomic segregation? That's very real, even if anyone
> can sit on any seat on the bus now.
>
> > > It's not prevalent, but it is still relevant. Negroes in the US really
> > > missed the boat in a big big way and nothing serious has been done to
> > > fix it.
> >
> > What can we do? I had nothing to do with it, we can't change history. Learn from
> > it and move on.
>
> I'm not sure we really can do anything tha is socially feasible.
>
> > I know many black people that are successful without affirmative action and
>
> And for each of them, how many are there that are not?
>
> > without government assistance. It's peoples willingness to follow the rules and
> > get ahead. Anyone can make it. We cannot do anything about slavery, it happened
>
> Follow the rules? Play the game? I don't always do that very well
> myself. I hate to begrudge success to people just because they don't
> want to conform. I go back and forth on this. Sometimes I don't really
> think it's that simple.
>
> > over one hundred years ago, and no one is affected now. There are so many
>
> It think that's demonstrably wrong.
>
> > scholarships and the like for minorities and opportunities, that no one should
> > feel they are victims. If they are, it is by their own choice.
>
> Not all victims are to blame.
>
> > Like I said in a previous post, I am in full agreement with you and Larry on a
> > lot of issues and what you have posted before. I think that our definitions are
> > screwed up. I don't know if I could ever be called a liberal, though! :)
> > Jeffersonian maybe, but not just a liberal.
>
> I've always described myself as a Classical Liberal, but maybe
> Jeffersonian Liberal (or just Jeffersonian) would be more clear for
> people nowadays.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Christopher L. Weeks
> central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) You were assuring me that this wonderful democracy works to protect the lives of the citizens, I think. You said "I was talking more of a constitutional democracy, where the people have certain rights (a.k.a. Bill of Rights) and protection (...) (27 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
